Are we going to see ice jumping competition? What is the figure skating about???? Will there be any robust metrology to count the rotation? I dont want to see 2.7 axel jump to get full credit for triple axel

Are we going to see ice jumping competition? What is the figure skating about???? Will there be any robust metrology to count the rotation? I dont want to see 2.7 axel jump to get full credit for triple axel

2.7 rotation in the air for an axel jump will be counted as a double axel

Wally Lutz - Too much gobble de gook to explain a simple question. That's a lot of company support you are given to Falls. With sometimescan be. The issues of the URs and the Falls are quite clear.
Losing the last third of a 3part element is serious. A Fall on a jump is much more serious than landing a jump with an error. Clearly, I think you know that.

If a fall is severly penalized, then would it advance FS? We praise skaters' guts attempting extremely hard jumps such as 3a for women and 4 for men. Shouldn't we give them a break if we want to see more skaters attempting difficult jumps?

Not all errors are equal and you know that. Some are more serious than others. Fall is only one of many type of errors and it's not even an automatic -3 GOE, FYI, a common misconception, nonetheless, worth pointing out.

That's very Orwellian of you. All people are equal but some are more equal than others.

I'm not talking about the differences in an error. I'm talking about a complete loss of a part of an Element. If someone does not land a jump he has not completed the Element. That is tres serieux. I don't know why you can't grasp that.

If a skater attempts a spin but happens to skid and fall do you give partial credit for the attempt or a big nothing because there was no spin. It's a humongous mistake in the Element. There was NO SPIN. One has to look at an attempt to see if there was an element to judge. At least in the case we are discussing, it's just one part of an Element. Credit could be given for the two other parts.

Now... The Under Rotation means that the skater has landed the jump with an error. I think we can both agree on this, and I would say further that if the skater can continue with the FLOW of the program, the penalty could be less than automatic. And I can agree that within the context of a situation, errors can be penalized differently, but only if it is within a particular jump.

I'm not talking about the differences in an error. I'm talking about a complete loss of a part of an Element. If someone does not land a jump he has not completed the Element.

That is an interesting way to look at it. We can divide the deftition of a particular jump element into three parts, take-off, rotation in the air, and landing. So for example, a triple Lutz, by definition, comprises:

1. Take-off with toe-pick assist off a back outside edge.

Of you cheat the edge, then you have not satisfied the definition of the element., a triple Lutz.

2. Rotate three times in the air.

If you cheat the rotation you have not satisfied the definition of the element, a triple Lutz.

3. Land on the BOE of the opposite foot.

If you fall on the landing, then you have not satisfied this part of the three-part definition.

So which is worst, to fail on the first part, the second part, or the third part? For skating purists, I think a good case could be made for saying "no credit" if you don't do 1, 2,and 3.

Say it gets the base< score for a quad flip (8.6) and straight -2 GOE (in 1.0 increments for quads, so 2.0).

So 6.6. More than a pretty good triple flip, less than a triple axel.

That sounds bad. Was that that rotated in the begin with? Wouldn't it have gotten << instead of <?

I hope that this won't set an example as a strategy to take. I think it great to save a slightly UR jump. But how many times has he ever landed that Flip in practices? It does not sound right to get 6.6 for the jump you barely have yet.

That sounds bad. Was that that rotated in the begin with? Wouldn't it have gotten << instead of <?

I hope that this won't set an example as a strategy to take. I think it great to save a slightly UR jump. But how many times has he ever landed that Flip in practices? It does not sound right to get 6.6 for the jump you barely have yet.

who cares how many times he landed it in practice. The flip was fully rotated, but double footed.

That is an interesting way to look at it. We can divide the deftition of a particular jump element into three parts, take-off, rotation in the air, and landing. So for example, a triple Lutz, by definition, comprises:

1. Take-off with toe-pick assist off a back outside edge.

Of you cheat the edge, then you have not satisfied the definition of the element., a triple Lutz.

2. Rotate three times in the air.

If you cheat the rotation you have not satisfied the definition of the element, a triple Lutz.

3. Land on the BOE of the opposite foot.
So which is worst, to fail on the first part, the second part, or the third part? For skating purists, I think a good case could be made for saying "no credit" if you don't do 1, 2,and 3.

If you fall on the landing, then you have not satisfied this part of the three-part definition.
I think you can divide any element into the sum of its parts. A spin element has an entry, the actual spin and its ending as do jumps. (I do not feel that step sequences are elements, but I am no doubt the only one. To me they are part of the PCs makeup.)

If you cheat a rotation, then you will be looking at a UR when you do land unless you fall.

Taking off on the wrong edge, you will lose the name of the jump but get credi for full rotations and easier Landings. Those rotations are not from a counter rotation take-off which is the essence of that particular jump. The penalty is basically a wrist slap like a Fall compared to the penalty for a UR.

Falling and wrong edge take=offs are advantages for some skaters and they make good use of them.

To answer your question: Falling on the Landing is the easiest for the skater. Falling on the other two parts could very well be serious.

That sounds bad. Was that that rotated in the begin with? Wouldn't it have gotten << instead of <?

I hope that this won't set an example as a strategy to take. I think it great to save a slightly UR jump. But how many times has he ever landed that Flip in practices? It does not sound right to get 6.6 for the jump you barely have yet.

That is an interesting way to look at it. We can divide the deftition of a particular jump element into three parts, take-off, rotation in the air, and landing. So for example, a triple Lutz, by definition, comprises:

1. Take-off with toe-pick assist off a back outside edge.

Of you cheat the edge, then you have not satisfied the definition of the element., a triple Lutz.

2. Rotate three times in the air.

If you cheat the rotation you have not satisfied the definition of the element, a triple Lutz.

3. Land on the BOE of the opposite foot.

If you fall on the landing, then you have not satisfied this part of the three-part definition.

So which is worst, to fail on the first part, the second part, or the third part? For skating purists, I think a good case could be made for saying "no credit" if you don't do 1, 2,and 3.

ITA. The base value of a jump is mainly determined by the 2nd part of a jump, which makes me believe that a skater must be given a credit for completing the second part of a jump unless there is a rule stating that no points should be given if there are any errors such as UR, wrong edge or fall.

i think he was bashed because he added the quad knowing he would not land it, but figured a fall on the quad would get him more points than the alternative. This was shocking because before CoP, a skater would never fall as stratgey, a fall pretty much was a final blow. Since then the rules have changed so falls on quads make them pretty much worthless.

Yeah.
I'm still not sure what I think about the smaller GOE increments.

I agree with wallylutz.

I don't think it's inefficient -- I think it gives more flexibility.

Suppose I'm a judge and Skater X does a triple axel that looks pretty iffy to me. It was kind of slow going in and coming out, and I think it was probably a bit underrotated but I can't tell for sure whether it was within the 90-degree allowance. I give it a -1. After the program, when the tech panel reviews the rotation, they add the < mark. I feel vindicated that I was correct in catching the underrotation and I leave in the -1.

Later Skater Y also does a triple axel that looks pretty good. More speed going in, higher and covers more ice in the air, acceptable speed coming out with good extension in the landing position, and the rotation looked fine from my angle. I debate between 0 and +1. After the program, I see that the tech panel has added the < mark, so I realize it must not have been as well rotated as I thought, but everything else was still more than acceptable. Well, that decides me that I'd better not give +1 as the final mark, but I'll consider that +1 for the good qualities and -1 for the underrotation balance out to 0 as the final GOE.

A judge who thinks that intermediate base mark is sufficient penalty for such an exciting attempt that looked clean in real time could choose to award the +1 anyway.

Skater Z crawls into a telegraphed triple axel that is clearly well over 90 degrees short of rotation in the air, so I know it will get at least the < call and possibly <<. The skater struggles to control the landing but does manage to stay on one foot on a back outside edge holding a small circle for about a second before skating into the next strokes. Definitely cheated, but it was landed on one foot on the correct edge, so -3 seems overly harsh. I know right away I'm going to give it -2, and I won't change my mind regardless of whether the tech panel awards the intermediate base mark or the downgrade.

All these cheated triple axels get the intermediate base mark, allowing the tech panel to distinguish between a successful jump, an attempted triple that was not quite there, and a double or a not-even-close attempted triple.

GOE allows the judges to make finer distinctions between a jump that looked clean in real time, a jump that looked suspicious, and one that was clearly short (but still closer to triple than double).

Now suppose that skater Y had done her clean-looking 95-degree short 3A out of a spread eagle entrance and into another spread eagle on the exit, perfectly timed with the music. I was going to give it +2 until I saw the < mark, so I'll give it +1 instead.

Or if skater X also lightly touches her free toe to the ice on the landing I can give her -2. If skater Z loses her fight to hold that landing on one foot and puts her free foot down behind her, I can give her -3.

And all those potential pluses or penalties could also apply to fully rotated jumps.

Thanks for pointing that out. Yes, I hope this will improve the choreography and encourage skaters to concentrate on the quality instead of just chasing levels.

To wallylutz.. I know you said in another thread that Yuna should consider retirement with these new rules. If Yuna can add a triple axle to her program, do you think she can do it? Granted she continues.